4 ms·

> What's special about natural gas here? On/off in seconds as the sun fades or the wind drops to fill in for the missing power output.

by gopalv 6y ago

ineedasername 6y ago
Coal isn't great on startup times, but oil can be as good or better: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45956 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45956. According to that same page, most natural gas plants currently in use utilize a combined cycle system which takes significantly longer than more flexible, but less prevalent, combustion turbines. Though maybe the point is moot: Even if the total environmental impact of natural gas is the same as oil, and leaving aside the geopolitical issues-- natural gas is still cheaper, so if you're going to choose between two bad options then you might as well go with the lower cost one. At which point you just invest in upgrading those combined gas plants to more flexible combustion turbines. However, nuclear isn't completely out of the game here: It may have a very long cold-start time, but in the last decade there's been progress in making it capable of load-following instead of just baseload, especially when it's planned, e.g after sunset. There's certainly other environmental factors there, but if we're worried about decreasing CO2 ASAP, nuclear should probably be part of the conversation.
- onepointsixC 6y ago
  I absolute agree that nuclear should be part of the conversation, but the biggest barriers to nuclear is regulation and costs. Spending all the effort needed to build a plant just to not run it at maximum capacity all the time would be an unaffordable luxury. It makes much more economic sense to have it be base.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    would be an unaffordable luxury An underutilized nuclear plant may still be a necessity instead of a luxury if we're running out of time on CO2 emissions. In this case, making economic sense may run counter to long term human interests.
labawi 6y ago
The important combination is easy fast regulation as you say, but also cheap to build and operate. Many are built to operate < 10% of capacity, so simple single stage instead of more efficient CCGT, because it's insanely cheap peak power compared to alternatives.

> What's special about natural gas here? On/off in seconds as the sun fades or the wind drops to fill in for the missing power output.

by gopalv 6y ago

> What's special about natural gas here? On/off in seconds as the sun fades or the wind drops to fill in for the missing power output.

ineedasername 6y ago

Coal isn't great on startup times, but oil can be as good or better: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45956 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45956. According to that same page, most natural gas plants currently in use utilize a combined cycle system which takes significantly longer than more flexible, but less prevalent, combustion turbines. Though maybe the point is moot: Even if the total environmental impact of natural gas is the same as oil, and leaving aside the geopolitical issues-- natural gas is still cheaper, so if you're going to choose between two bad options then you might as well go with the lower cost one. At which point you just invest in upgrading those combined gas plants to more flexible combustion turbines. However, nuclear isn't completely out of the game here: It may have a very long cold-start time, but in the last decade there's been progress in making it capable of load-following instead of just baseload, especially when it's planned, e.g after sunset. There's certainly other environmental factors there, but if we're worried about decreasing CO2 ASAP, nuclear should probably be part of the conversation.

onepointsixC 6y ago
I absolute agree that nuclear should be part of the conversation, but the biggest barriers to nuclear is regulation and costs. Spending all the effort needed to build a plant just to not run it at maximum capacity all the time would be an unaffordable luxury. It makes much more economic sense to have it be base.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  would be an unaffordable luxury An underutilized nuclear plant may still be a necessity instead of a luxury if we're running out of time on CO2 emissions. In this case, making economic sense may run counter to long term human interests.

labawi 6y ago

The important combination is easy fast regulation as you say, but also cheap to build and operate. Many are built to operate < 10% of capacity, so simple single stage instead of more efficient CCGT, because it's insanely cheap peak power compared to alternatives.